Republic of the Philippines After due hearing of this appellant, the court a

SUPREME COURT quo issued, on 20 December 1962, the writ of

Manila possession with respect to Lot Nos. 15891 and
15896, which writ was, upon petitioners' motion for
EN BANC reconsideration, amended, on 7 January 1963, to
include all the other lots covered by both titles.
G.R. Nos. L-21703-04             August 31, 1966
Respondent did not appeal from this order amending
MATEO H. REYES and JUAN H. REYES, petitioners the writ of possession.
and appellants, 
vs. Subsequently, petitioners in the above cadastral
MATEO RAVAL REYES, respondent and appellee. cases, as plaintiffs, commenced, on 15 January 1963,
before the same court of first instance, an ordinary
Harold M. Hernando for petitioners and appellants. civil action seeking to recover the products of the
Rafael Ruiz for respondent and appellee. disputed lots, or their value, and moral damages
against respondent Mateo Raval Reyes, as
defendant. This case was docketed as its Civil Case
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
No. 3659.
Direct appeal on pure question of law from an order of
Defendant therein (now respondent M. Raval Reyes)
the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, in its
answered the complaint and pleaded a counterclaim
Cadastral Cases Nos. 31, L. R. C. Rec. No. 1188, and
for partition of all the disputed lots, alleging the same
42, L. R. C. Rec. No. 1994, denying petitioners'
ground he had heretofore raised in his answer and/or
motion to compel respondent to surrender their
opposition to the motion for issuance of writ of
owners' duplicates of Original Certificates of Title Nos.
possession, i.e., he is their (plaintiffs') co-owner, he
22161 and 8066, as well as from a subsequent order
having bought from plaintiffs' brother, Francisco H.
of the same court, refusing, upon petitioners' motion,
Reyes, the latter's undivided one-third (1/3) share,
to reconsider the first order of denial.
interest and participation to these disputed lots.
The undisputed facts are: three brothers, Mateo H.,
Pending trial on this ordinary civil case (No. 3659),
Juan H., and Francisco H., all surnamed Reyes, are
petitioners presented, on 25 February 1963, in the
the registered owners of several parcels of land, to
cadastral cases aforementioned, a motion to compel
wit; Lots Nos. 15891, 15896, 15902 and 15912, of the
respondent Mateo Raval Reyes to surrender and
Laoag (Ilocos Norte) Cadastre, embraced in and
deliver to them the owners' duplicates of Original
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 22161, and
Certificates of Title Nos. 22161 and 8066.
also Lots Nos. 20481 and 20484, of the same
Respondent opposed this motion.
cadastral survey, embraced in and covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. 8066, both of the
Registry of Deeds of Ilocos Norte. These titles were The court a quo denied petitioners' motion, on the
issued pursuant to a decree of registration, dated 31 ground that the parcels of land covered by both titles
May 1940. are subjects of litigation in Civil Case No. 3659 and
the same has not yet been decided on the merits by
it. Petitioners subjected the foregoing order to a
On 17 July 1962, petitioners Mateo H. Reyes and
motion for reconsideration, but without success;
Juan H. Reyes filed, in the above stated cadastral
hence, the present appeal.
cases, a motion for issuance of writs of possession
over all the lots covered by both Certificates of Title
above referred to. Petitioners-appellants dispute the above ruling of the
trial court contending that, since the subject matter of
Civil Case No. 3659 are not the lots covered by the
Respondent Mateo Raval Reyes opposed the motion,
titles in question but their products or value, and
admitting that he is only in possession of the lots
moral damages, these lots are not in litigation in this
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 22161, but
ordinary civil case; and that since respondent had
denying that he possesses the lots covered by
already raised the issue of ownership and possession
Original Certificate of Title No. 8066; however, he
of these lots in his opposition to the (petitioners')
claimed that he has been in, and is entitled to, the
motion for issuance of writ of possession and, despite
possession thereof (i.e., Lots Nos. 20481 and 20484),
this opposition, the court a quo granted the writ,
having acquired by way of absolute sale (not
without any appeal being taken, respondent is barred
recorded) from petitioners' brother, Francisco H.
and estopped from raising the same issue in the
Reyes, the latter's undivided one-third (1/3) share,
ordinary civil case, under the principle ofres judicata.
interest and participation to these disputed lots.
1äwphï1.ñët
On the other hand, respondent-appellee maintains 698 se expidio por el Registrador de Titulos a favor
that, having pleaded a counterclaim for partition of the de la misma es obvious que quien tiene derecho a
lots in question in said Civil Case No. 3659, the trial poseer el certificado de titulo es ella y no la apelante
court correctly held that these lots are subjects of (art. 41 de la Ley No. 496, tal como ha sido
litigation in this ordinary civil case. He also maintains reformado).
that petitioners not having impleaded their brother,
Francisco H. Reyes, or his heirs, as parties in their Alega la apelante que ella tiene tanto derecho como
motion for issuance of writ of execution, and because la apelada a poseer el titulo porque el terreno a que
these heirs have not intervened in this particular se refiere es de la propiedad de las tres hermanas. La
incident, the writ of possession issued by the trial pretension no es meritoria Segun el articulo 41 de la
court is, at most, valid only with respect to their Ley No. 496, conforme ha sido enmendado, el
(petitioners) undivided two-thirds (2/3) share and duplicado para el dueno debe expedirse por el
participation in these disputed lots; hence, he Registrador a nombre de la persona a cuyo favor se
concludes that he is not barred and estopped from ha decretado el terreno y dispone, ademas, que dicho
raising the issue of ownership and possession of the duplicado debe entregarsele al dueño inscrito. Si la
undivided one-third (1/3) share and participation of apelante cree que tiene derecho a participar en el lote
petitioners' brother, Francisco H. Reyes, which share No. 778, como coheredera, debe ejercitar una accion
respondent allegedly bought from the latter. independiente, encaminada a obtener su
participacion. (El Director de
In their reply brief, petitioners-appellants refute the Terrenos contra Abacahin 72 Phil. 326).
latter argument of respondent-appellee by showing
that they had previously obtained special authority It being undisputed that respondent had already
from the heirs of their deceased brother to represent availed of an independent civil action to recover his
them in the proceedings had in the court below. alleged co-owner's share in the disputed lots by filing
a counterclaim for partition in said Civil Case No.
The sole issue to be resolved in the instant appeal is: 3659, his rights appear to be amply protected; and
who between petitioners-appellants or respondent- considering that he may also avail of, to better protect
appellee has a better right to the possession or his rights thereto, the provision on notice of lis
custody of the disputed owners' duplicates of pendens under Section 24, Rule 14, of the Revised
certificates of title. Rules of Court, for the purpose of recording the fact
that the lots covered by the titles in question are
While we agree with the court a quo that the disputed litigated in said Civil Case No. 3659, we again see no
lots are subjects of litigation in Civil Case No. 3659, it justifiable reason for respondent to retain the custody
appearing that respondent, as defendant therein, had of the owners' duplicates of certificates of titles.
presented a counterclaim for partition of the lots
covered by the titles, we see no valid and plausible In view of the above considerations, we deem it
reason to justify, on this ground, the withholding from unnecessary to pass on the merits of the second
the registered owners, such as the petitioners- contention of petitioners-appellants.
appellants herein, the custody and possession of the
owners' duplicates of certificates of title. In a decided Wherefore, the orders appealed from should be, as
case, this Court has already held that the owner of the they are hereby, reversed; and, in accordance with
land in whose favor and in whose name said land is this opinion, respondent Mateo Raval Reyes is hereby
registered and inscribed in the certificate of title has a ordered to deliver to petitioners the owners' duplicates
more preferential right to the possession of the of Original Certificates of Title No. 22161 and 8066.
owners' duplicate than one whose name does not With costs against respondent-appellee, Mateo Raval
appear in the certificate and has yet to establish his Reyes.
right to the possession thereto. Thus, this Court said:
Concepcion, C.J., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal,
Como acertadamente dijo el Juzgado, lo unico que se Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ.,
suscita es si Ana Umbao de Carpio tiene derecho a la concur.
possession del duplicado para el dueno del Regala, J., took no part.
Certificado de Titulo Original No. 698, con preferencia
a la opositora-apelante. A nuestro juicio, la solucion
es clara e ineludible. Hallandose admitido que el
decreto final que se dicto en el expediente catastral
en 28 de mayo de 1936, en relacion con el lote No.
778, fue a favor de Ana Umbao y que el duplicado
para el dueño del Certificado de Titulo Original No.